fragmentation in activist

There seems to be some sort of balance between the ambiguous and impersonal and the specific and personal. In post-modern fiction, an integration has occurred where the author uses more ambiguous and impersonal elements to transfer more of the meaning-bearing elements into the reader. Because less meaning is explicitly conferred within the text, the meanings conveyed will have a lot to do with the readers meaning generating structures. This method, however, makes the specific elements and sections of continuous narrative stick out more by contrast.

Why would the author utilize ambiguity and fragmentation in her narrative if it only emphasized the specific/personal elements? My guess is that there is supposed to be a special dynamic between the clear aspects of the Activist and the fragmented aspects. At the same time that certain continuous sections or repetitive themes jump out at the reader, the inter-subjective chaos of the activists renders these elements in an unstable way.

This dynamic is barely held together by the time the second section featuring the reporter comes around. Every image and piece of dialog, such as “America for Americans!” or a clear statement of intention by the reporter seems like the author is giving something away. Then on the return to the hideout of the activists, the fragmentation is quite stark by comparison. The atmosphere, however, is interesting at this point. Monique’s hideout is a quiet house with familiar things like telephones, refrigerators, sleep and sex. There is a tense feeling but calm, like the eye of a storm. This I quite liked.

JE